Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Monday, June 22, 2009

Attention conservatives, strict constructionists and all those opposed to judicial "activism" and who want to see the Constitution restored as the law of the land: the Talmudic Tradition embodies a wide range of principles that permit judicial deviation from Constitutional law

In this Article, I explore judicial discretion under Halakhic law, Anglo-American law, and Israeli law. In Part I, I compare the differences in treatment of judicial discretion between the Palestinian Talmud and the Babylonian (Bavli) Talmud. In Part II, I explore judicial discretion in the modern era. In Part III, I argue that the Babylonian Talmudic conception of judicial discretion is forthright about the existence and need for discretion, thus avoiding the doctrinal problems that inhere in the Palestinian Talmud. Moreover, I argue that the Bavli should serve as a model approach for coming to terms with the discretion that inheres in our Anglo-American judicial system, which is indispensable for the administration of justice.

The notion of discretion in the exercise of governmental powers is one that vexes scholars and the public alike. Is the mere existence of discretion the first stop on the road to judicial tyranny? Or is it an indispensable element in the pursuit of justice?

Some consider discretion to be “the law of tyrants: It is always unknown: It is different in different men: It is casual, and depends upon constitution, temper, passion. In the best it is oftentimes caprice: In the worst it is every vice, folly, and passion, to which human nature is liable.” This view is codified in an oft-cited provision of the Massachusetts Constitution.

It is also reflected in an engraving on the side of the United States Department of Justice building, in Washington, D.C., summarized by five words: “Where law ends tyranny begins.” Yet, in our system of government, where law ends tyranny need not begin. Where law ends, discretion begins, and the exercise of discretion may mean either beneficence or tyranny, either justice or injustice, either reasonableness or arbitrariness . . . . No government has ever been a government of all laws and not of men . . . . Every government has always been a government of law and of men.

The study of discretion in the judicial process has generated countless treatises and jurisprudential theories. These studies, naturally, analyze this concept from a contemporary perspective that is rooted in modern Anglo-American law. Judicial discretion, however, is not a new concept or one that is unique to democratic societies. Indeed, it is an issue that has divided post-biblical societies in Ancient Israel. Furthermore, the methods developed by rabbis in the Talmudic era are as relevant now as they were then, in understanding and accepting judicial discretion in our democratic society.

(Emphasis supplied)

Hoffman's note: if anyone has a complete copy of Mr. Pardo's article I would like to have it.

Saturday, June 13, 2009

Manchurian candidate, James von Brunn has prepared the altar. Now comes the procession of Catholic bishops to incense the idol of Holocaustolatry, once again. The liturgical season of "The Holocaust" never ends.

James von Brunn, like the rabbis, is an anti-Christian racial determinist. He's mentally programmed to behave in an anti-Christian rabbinic manner. Like the rabbis, who teach that "Amalek" is a genetically programmed enemy of "The Jews" and cannot be reasoned with and therefore must be killed, so does James von Brunn believe that "The Jews" are genetically programmed enemies of "The White Race" and cannot be reasoned with and therefore must be killed.

In essence, there is no difference between James von Brunn and Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai who he paraphrased in the title of his book, Kill the Best Gentiles. But one of these race haters is sainted while the other will live in infamy in accordance with the crazy double-standards of this crazy, racist world, which the (Catholic) bishops honor above all.

Cardinal George sanctifies the "hallowed space" of the U.S. Holocaust Museum and calls for more "education" against every kind of bias (except pro-Judaic bias, of course). No, Cardinal George, the world needs the Gospel, the teachings of Jesus Christ which your elder brothers are attempting to destroy with their "education" and Holocaustolatry.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

EDITOR'S NOTE: The following anti-Christian rant has been attributed to James von Brunn, the accused assailant at the "Holocaust Museum." As Christians we are publishing this disgusting statement alleged to be his (from a website called antichrist.net) not because we endorse it (in fact we utterly condemn it) -- but to demonstrate that the seeming Manchurian Candidate James von Brunn was not part of our movement and his deeds cannot be attributed to Christian revisionists.

If this is in fact Von Brunn's authentic writing, then he extols race as much as any rabbi.

Strange indeed is the degree to which he allegedly fired his gun on cue, timed to support the game plan of the Cryptocracy.

CHRISTIANITY and the HOLOCAUSTby James W. von Brunn

http://www.antichrist.net/vonbrunn.html

As duped Aryan sheep begin to understand the "Holocaust" they also begin to better understand Christianity. Both have similar origins. Both have identical objectives.

Saul of Tarsus, after helping friends stone to death a disciple of Jesus Christ, set forth toward Damascus. As he trudged the dusty road a blinding, excruciating light suddenly crashed his brain. The world whirled into a crimson vortex. He heard his own scream, far away. Then there was quiet. When he awoke he was lying on the road. He looked up. A man in a white cloak was standing there his hands outstretched. His hands bore deep scars. Saul trembled with fright. Then Jesus smiled, pulling Saul upright, saying, "Fear not, Saul of Tarsus, I come to you from our Father." It was a miracle.

Saul and Jesus earnestly, fervently, joyously conversed with one another. Arm in arm they tarried there. Jesus told Saul he was his own. Jesus was loving, loving, forgiving, forgiving. Saul became his disciple there and then -- struck by the Holy Spirit. Finally, following Saul's vows of fidelity, love, and obedience, the visitation ended when, before Saul's wondering awe-struck eyes, Jesus to Heaven in a halo did rise. It was a miracle.

We are told that this extra-sensory experience, somewhat like an epileptic fit, suddenly changed the hateful, murderer Saul (later, St. Paul) from a hater of Jesus into a Jesus lover. Really?

Saul, ten years younger, had not met The Master vis a vis before Jesus' crucifixion. Had they met earlier Saul probably would have crushed Christ's head with a rock. Saul, and most Israelis, detested Jesus and his blasphemous ideology almost as much as they detested Romans; more even than they detested Greeks, Babylonians, Assyrians, Canaanites, Egyptians, Persians, et al. In truth, as bigoted Judeophobes know, God's "Chosen People" hated their God's only Son.

Matthew emphatically states that Israelis so hated Jesus Christ that THEY crucified him (Pope John Paul II, Zionist, said that Matthew is wrong! What's that? "The Word of God" is wrong?).

ACTUALLY, on the road to Damascus -- brooding about Rome, relishing the bloody image of the disciple he had stoned to death; sweaty, sore footed, thinking of the blasphemous ravings of the Nazarene -- Saul had an incredible, earthshaking IDEA. A light-bulb inspiration. He, Saul -- a Roman citizen -- suddenly realized how he could destroy Rome! Saul trembled uncontrollably with fear and joy. He would simply promulgate the insane teachings of Jesus! What better way to destroy a Nation -- any Nation -- than to undermine her hubris; her gods, ethics, mores, history, her gene-pool -- in short, Saul would DESTROY ROMAN CULTURE. Then, as night follows day, with her foundations rotted, the Roman Empire would FALL. Saul decided to begin the HOAX by inventing a miraculous encounter on the road to Damascus with the reincarnated Jesus the Christ!

Toward that end -- no different than Hollywood script-writers today -- Saul created a bogus a la Spielberg docu-drama stuffed with lies, miracles, guilt trips, betrayal, virgin birth, eternal damnation, salvation -- a scenario appealing to the superstitious, vulnerable, ignorant yearning sheep -- he named his hoax "Christianity."

The New Testament was written in Greek. Paul - who believed the World was flat, that Joshua made the sun stand still, and Jehovah spoke from a burning bush -- wrote one-third of it, perhaps more. The events described in the 24 Books are often contradictory, fail the time-line, defy both archaeology's and nature's immutable laws, and are suicidal if practiced.

Nevertheless, the shamans bought it, taught it, and the illiterate public was coerced, brainwashed, threatened, tortured, murdered, and enthralled. The Encyclopedia Britannica states that over 6,000 major redactions exist between the Septuagint (translation of Aramaic into Greek) and its St. James biblical translation.

The Gospels profess that only Christians may enter Yahweh's Kingdom of Heaven. To qualify, among other demands, Christians must LOVE THEIR ENEMIES (Jews); give away their personal belongings; eschew knowledge; judge not, despise nature, abandon earthly pleasures, acknowledge that all YHWH's children are equal; and above all else worship YHWH, the jealous, wrathful, vengeful, unforgiving, genocidal, anthropomorphic tribal god (Jesus' father) created by Hebrews in their image and likeness. Omnipotent, omniscient YHWH promises Hebrews that they alone shall inherit the earth, that it is commendable to steal from Gentiles, better yet -- kill them. Whereas Gentiles, if they fail to worship YHWH, are transported straight to Hell. And it is written, "A little child shall lead them."

These dangerous, imbecilic, concepts, tenets, and teachings, often treasonous, DESTROYED the Roman Empire and drenched the soil of Europe with Aryan blood for almost 2000 years!

The Big Lie technique, employed by Paul to create the CHRISTIAN RELIGION, also was used to create the HOLOCAUST RELIGION ... CHRISTIANITY AND THE HOLOCAUST are HOAXES.

Tuesday, June 09, 2009

In a 5-4 decision released on June 8, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Constitution can require an elected judge to step aside in a particular case based on campaign spending in state judicial races. The majority ruling in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., No. 08-22, was written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Joining Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in dissent were Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

In his dissent Scalia wrote:

"A Talmudic maxim instructs with respect to the Scripture: “Turn it over, and turn it over, for all is therein.” The Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Aboth, Ch. V, Mishnah 22 (I. Epstein ed. 1935).

"Divinely inspired text may contain the answers to all earthly questions, but the Due Process Clause most assuredly does not.

"The Court today continues its quixotic quest to right all wrongs and repair all imperfections through the Constitution.

"Alas, the quest cannot succeed—which is why some wrongs and imperfections have been called nonjusticiable. In the best of all possible worlds, should judges sometimes recuse even where the clear commands of our prior due process law do not require it? Undoubtedly.

"The relevant question, however, is whether we do more good than harm by seeking to correct this imperfection through expansion of our constitutional mandate in a manner ungoverned by any discernable rule. The answer is obvious."

Hoffman's Analysis

Rabbi Ben Bag Bag in the Mishnah passage cited by Scalia is allegedly referring to constant rabbinic analysis of the Torah. Scalia claims that the rabbi is saying it is necessary to analyze the Torah over and over; by doing so one will discover all truth and wisdom therein. Scalia seems to be stating one can't say the same about a single clause of the Constitution.

The majority of the justices from whom Scalia dissents have ruled that it is their understanding of the “Due Process Clause” that a judge who is obligated to a donor in some circumstances must recuse himself from a case involving the donor.

Scalia "seems" to be saying (one can't be absolutely certain because his writing, far from being "obvious," suffers from the legalese that lawyer-priests routinely use to obscure their judgments), that certain judges treat the Constitution as if it were Scripture. They search a single clause in the Constitution for truth and wisdom like rabbis search a single verse from a "Divinely inspired text."

Scalia's ruling seems to be a species of liberal anarchism: one can't find truth and wisdom in too close a study of the Constitution. He appears to be stating that unlike the Bible, the Constitution is not so authoritative that it contains everything necessary to reach a correct legal decision, and unlike rabbis, who are right to “Turn it over, and turn it over, for all is therein," Supreme Court justices are wrong to put this emphasis on the Constitution.

There are other significant problems with Scalia's employment of the Talmud text in this context, including but not limited to his abysmal ignorance of the Talmud, which probably is due to the fact that he is a goy who studies the Talmud with Chabad-Lubavitch rabbis who are not exactly paragons of integrity when it comes to parsing the mysteries of the Talmud for the sake of the goyim.

1. Within the context of Scalia's opinion we must ask, if the Constitution cannot be relied on to this degree, to what degree can it be relied on and what are the limits of its authority?

2. Since the rabbis falsify the Bible with their Talmudic exegesis, and since their self-ordained mandate to "repair all imperfections" (tikkun olam) is based on the intervention of Judaic brain power to "improve" and "correct" God's supposedly flawed creation, Scalia's analogy fails as a model dichotomy of proper and improper attitudes toward enshrined texts.

3. Based on Scalia's past utterances and the prestige he lends to rabbinic gatherings by his uncritical presence at their meetings, we feel certain that Scalia does not understand how tikkun olam is actually perceived and implemented in the rabbinic universe. He has accepted the rabbinic cover story at face value.

4. Scalia's choice of the obsolete and opaque 1935 Epstein English translation of the Mishnah as his citation for the quote he uses, rather than Jacob Neusner's vastly superior 1988 Mishnah translation (Yale University Press), tends to indicate how atrophied is his knowledge of the Talmud and its variant texts.

5. In point of fact, the particular Mishnah passage cited by Justice Scalia is a description of the "traits of the disciples of Abraham" as compared unfavorably with the "traits of the disciples of Balaam" (cf. Mishnah Abot 5, III; Neusner pp. 688-689).

In the Talmud, Balaam is a codeword for Jesus (see my book Judaism Discovered, pp. 392-395, though this is hotly denied by the ADL and similar Zionist and rabbinic thought police). Consequently, Justice Scalia is quoting what the Mishnah says are character traits which are the opposite of those of the wicked Jesus ("Balaam").

If one does not wish to join the Christians, i.e. the "disciples of Balaam" who "inherit Gehenna and go down to the Pit of Destruction" (Mishnah Abot 5:19), one must, declares Rabbi Ben Bag Bag: "Turn it over and over because everything is in it and reflect upon it and grow old and worn in it and do not leave it" (Mishnah Abot 5:22; this is a complete quotation of the fragment cited by Scalia).

If we examine the verse that precedes Mishnah Abot 5:22 (Mishnah Abot 5:21) we discover that it contains an allusion to the primacy of the Mishnah and the Talmud. Hence, it is not at all clear that the text that Rabbi Bag Bag advises one to "turn over and over" is in fact "with respect to the Scripture," i.e. the Bible, as Scalia implies. It is just as likely, and in this writer's view, more likely, that the rabbi is referring to turning over and over the "Torah" (sic) derived from the oral traditions of the Pharisees (Torah SheBeal peh), such as the Mishnah itself. In which case, whether consciously or unconsciously, Supreme Court Justice Scalia is stating that the U.S. Constitution does not have the authority of the Talmud and does not merit the kind of intense study which the Talmud merits, and this in an anti-Christian context.